Update on YB Fuziah & Tan Keng Liang LYNAS debate

UPDATES on YB Fuziah Salleh & Tan Keng Liang Debate:

The Lynas Advance Materials Plant (LAMP) project – Pros and Cons

To recap:

I came across the debate on Twitter between YB Fuziah Salleh and Tan Keng Liang on the Lynas plant issue. Both sides were already Tweeting about their willingness to debate and I offered to be the moderator and organizer to move the debate out of Twitter into reality.

Now the next step is to put things in order. To recap, the purpose of the debate is:

1. To find out the truth about the Lynas plant issue;
2. To detach the issue from politics and look squarely at the facts;
3. To provide a neutral and balanced platform for factual information to be aired.

Updates on the Debate Format

We have taken propositions from both sides as best as we could based on the debate format previously released here - http://letusaddvalue.blogspot.com/2012/03/yb-fuziah-salleh-tan-keng-liang-debate.html

YB Fuziah suggested

i) that more time should be given for speakers

ii) to add one more panelist to each side

We have agreed to these requests. The organizer has the final word on the following format and conditions and these will no longer be open to discussion.

Debate Format

What?

Debate Title:

The Lynas Advance Materials Plant (LAMP) project – Pros and Cons

There will be three panelists in each team - Two debaters and one industry expert. In the interest of time, each debater will be apportioned 15 minutes, and each expert will be given 20 minutes.

The format will be as follows:

· First speaker proposition – 15 minutes

· First speaker opposition – 15 minutes

· Second speaker proposition – 15 minutes

· Second speaker opposition – 15 minutes

· Expert on opposition side – 20 minutes

· Expert on proposition side – 20 minutes

· Questions from the floor

Guidelines

In order to allow for a substantial debate session and remove any unnecessary repetitions, we recommend the following guidelines:

1. Technical and scientific facts and figures, issues of radioactivity, biochemical effects of rare earth metals on humans, etc. best be handled by experts in the field as scientific backup to the debate on both sides.

2. We suggest that the other two speakers focus on these key areas.

• Do we have the following adequately in place to allow for safe setting up and running of a rare earth refinery plant?

i. Processes and administrative systems – Are they tight enough to ensure no complications before, during and after plant is set up?

ii. Legislation – Are our existing laws adequate to support safety and deter any wrongdoing? Do we have enough law enforcement bodies to deal with issues that may arise in dealing in this industry?

iii. Procedures and standards, monitoring mechanisms, maintenance cycles etc. – What do we have in place and are they good enough?

· What are the role of politicians on all sides to ensure minimal risk to people and what are the checking mechanisms to make sure its followed through? Is it being followed in the Lynas case?

· The impacts of the project:

i. Economic impact?

ii. Technological impact i.e. transfer of technology?

iii. Business-related impact?

iv. Environmental impact?

v. Social impact?

vi. Global impact?

· Lessons from the past – Asian Rare Earth case in Bukit Merah. What have we learnt from it, what steps, systems, processes have we put in place to ensure the mistakes that caused it is in no way repeated. How far have we corrected the misgivings? Will it happen again?

Who?

Proposition:

1) Tan Keng Liang

2) *Second speaker

3) *Expert Panelist

Opposition:

1) YB Hajjah Fuziah Salleh

2) *Second speaker

3) *Expert Panelist

*Both teams shall choose their own speakers and expert panelist and are free to organize their own teams.

With interest to the subject at hand, the second speaker should preferably be an environmentalist. The Expert panelist must be credible and their credentials must be furnished.

• Please submit the names of team members plus experts by 14 March 2012, Wednesday, 12 noon via e-mail to anas@zubedy.com.

***

Audience: By invitation only. Each side will be apportioned a maximum of 30 seats for supporters.

• We will request each side to register the names and I.C. numbers of their 30 supporters at a later date.
• Another 30 seats will be allocated for media representatives.
• Registered audience will be allocated numbered seats. No last minute changes will be entertained.

Where?

Debate will be held at zubedy’s training suite in Kuala Lumpur. Address as follows:

Zubedy (m) sdn. bhd.

Level 3, Wisma W.I.M.

7 Jalan Abang Hj Openg

Taman Tun Dr. Ismail

60000 Kuala Lumpur.

When?

Because it will be a rather lengthy session, the debate must be held on a weekend. We have decided on a Saturday morning. Taking into account scheduling, time to prepare, etc. we maintain either one of these proposed dates:

• 14^th April 2012 or 5^th May 2012

How?

REMINDER:

• The debate session will be STRICTLY NON-POLITICAL. Both sides and their supporters are forbidden to bear anything with political connotations, e.g. T-shirts, placards, etc. The whole session will be held in a straightforward setting, conducive for the uncovering of facts, figures and truth. Both parties MUST ensure that no gathering be allowed to take place at, in the vicinity, or in relation to this debate.
• Speakers, experts and audience must keep to the issue of the pros and cons of the Lynas Advance Materials Plant (LAMP) project. Any arguments brought forth must directly address the issue at hand.

***

Off-site Viewing & Participation:

• The debate, presentation by experts and question & answer session will be streamed ‘live’ on an online platform.
• There will be ‘live’ Twitter updates. We will also receive questions via Twitter for the Question/Answer session.
• The debate, presentations and question session will be recorded in video form. A verbatim transcription of the debate will be made for future reference.
• Organizers are considering producing a booklet of the contents discussed and generated in this debate session. Costs will be borne by us; any profit will be redirected to a related cause (to be decided).

***

YB Fuziah Salleh and Tan Keng Liang are requested to indicate their confirmation for the debate via an official e-mail to anas@zubedy.com, by this Friday (9 March 2012), 6.00 p.m. Failure to do so, unless with good reason, will be considered as a pull out.

Names of team members and expert panel must be submitted by Wednesday, 14 March 2012, 12 noon.

Anas Zubedy

Why we must read History

When you read some western commentators’ take on state capitalism today, one may have the wrong impression that the West has embraced Adam Smith from the very beginning and never had to rely on state protection in growing their economy and achieving their economic success. The truth however will show the opposite.

Let me explain.

Adam Smith Vs Friedrich List

“Americans persist in thinking that Adam Smith’s rules for free trade are the only legitimate ones. But today’s fastest growing economies are using a very different set of rules. Once, we knew them – knew them so well that we played by them, and won. Now we seem to have forgotten.” James Farlow

The Anglo-American system of economics and politics, like any other system, rest in certain principles or beliefs. Basically, the world of Adam Smith. However, instead of seeing their system as one of many systems, Britons and Americans tend to elevate their version of political-economics almost to the level of a religion.

Outside United States and Britain, however, the Anglo-American world of Adam Smith is but one theory amongst several theorists who had important ideas about organizing the economy. For example, during the Meiji era from 1868-1912, Japanese scholars, individualist, industrialist and administrators while ‘shopping’ for a model for development found Friederich List’s the German economist and some other contributors’ theories about how economies grew more persuasive than the laissez-faire teachings of Adam Smith. Malaysia, just like many other East Asian economies adopted the Japanese model.

Smith’s policy of laissez-faire indicates a belief that the nation’s economy functions best when it is free from government intervention by what popularly known as the ‘invisible hand’. List suggested a government policy that is more paternalistic. Individuals might not automatically choose the best action or will act with complete rationale. As such the state must also be concerned with the processes as well as the results of the economy. In other words, society did not automatically move from farming to small industries then jump to major industries, just because millions of small merchants were making decisions for themselves.

If every person put his money where the return is the greatest, the money might not automatically go where it would do the nation best. For it to do so, it requires a plan, a push, or exercise of a central power. As such, in List’s view, economic policies will be good or bad depending on how far it is in the national economic interest, that is, national interest as compared to other nations.

How did List come to these theories? He drew his hypothesis heavily on the history of America and Britain. Yes, you heard me right - American and Britain’s. Didn’t the Americans reach their heights in economic power via laissez fair and opening of the market as they seem to claim today? Not really.

Serious studies by Fallow and other economic historians like, William Lazonick, Thomas McCraw, Geffrey Perret etc will show otherwise.

They suggested that none of the major economies today like America, Britain, Germany nor Japan conformed to today’s model of ‘getting-prices right’ and putting the consumer’s welfare first as their early model for development. All had to ‘cheat’ somehow to succeed. In other words, when their economies were growing and still developing, the countries had no time for laissez faire.

America for example, only began to preach laissez faire to the rest of the world after it had grown strong. The traditional American support and portrayal to worldwide free trade and laissez faire (as the secret of its success) is quite recent – and not telling the whole truth. A phenomenon made popular since after the Second World War.

Prior to that, from economic activities like steel and arms industries, to transportation and agriculture etc. it was more so directed by the state. In short, America took steps and actions and did not wait for them to occur. They deliberately promoted the results they desired. Tariff, was a potent weapon. Similarly, the nineteenth-century British began advocating laissez faire and free trade after their economic development had already achieved a position of strength to withstand and benefit from open competition.

In summary, what America and Britain did while industrializing is not what they have been telling the world about industrialization today. Commenting on the ‘Asian model’, Farlow stressed,

“Today’s Americans and Britons may not like this new system, which makes their economic life more challenging and confusing than it would otherwise be. They are not obliged to try to initiate its structure, which in many ways fits the social circumstances of East Asia better than those of the modern United States or Britain. But, the English-speaking world should stop ignoring the existence of this system and stop pretending that it doesn’t work.”

It is not a surprise for student of economics that Joseph Schumpeter who popularized the term ‘creative destruction’ in economics never lectured on his own theories despite entreaties from his students and colleagues. Some scholars suggested that he felt that in the last analysis, his formulations were inadequate. However, everyone who is interested in economics must come to grip with him. Not only because of what he accomplished within the discipline, but because in his very achievements he demonstrated its limitation. Thus, it is interesting to note that Shumpeter towards the end of his long career as an economist, contemplated that if he were to be given a second chance to start all over again, he would have devoted his life to studying economic history instead of economic theory or statistics.

Economic history is very telling. It can help us debunk some very strong beliefs and open our minds to other alternatives.

Anas Zubedy

Kuala Lumpur

YB Fuziah Salleh & Tan Keng Liang Debate: The Lynas Advance Materials Plant (LAMP) project – Pros and Cons

I am happy that through the Twitterverse I am connected to YB Hajjah Fuziah Salleh, Member of Parliament of Kuantan, and Mr. Tan Keng Liang, youth chief of Parti Gerakan Kedah. YB Fuziah is spearheading a campaign to stop the Lynas rare earth refinery; Tan is a proponent that the project can be allowed to proceed.

In our interactions via Twitter, we have come to a juncture where both sides have agreed that they are willing to take part in a debate on the issue. While personally I do not see debates as an ideal way to deal with contentious issues as it is easy for it to degenerate into mere talk, what we want to try to do now is provide a platform for proponents and opponents of the Lynas plant to air their opinions, in the interest of truth. To do so, we will tighten up the debate structure in order to get to the facts of the issue and weed out unnecessary concerns that are not directly related.

For this purpose, I have offered to be the organizer and moderator of a debate between the two parties. As a moderator, I will be fair, firm, no-nonsense and have been known to cut any speaker short if he or she does not follow the rules, regardless of who the person is.

The purpose of this debate will be:

1. to find out the truth about the Lynas issue;
2. to detach the issue from politics and look squarely at the facts;
3. to provide a neutral and balanced platform for factual information to be aired

DEBATE FORMAT

Title: The Lynas Advance Materials Plant (LAMP) project – Pros and Cons

What?

Debate: Each side will be given 8 minutes to present their constructive speech, followed by a 4 minute summary and rebuttal speech.

Presentation by experts: An expert in the field appointed by each side will present a 20 minute factual explanation to support the points brought up by the speakers. Profile and credentials of the expert will be required to be made clear in the interest of legitimacy.

Question & Answer session: The two speakers and two experts will receive questions from the floor.

Who?

Proposition: Mr. Tan Keng Liang

Opposition: YB Hajjah Fuziah Salleh

Each side will appoint one expert in the field to offer a 20 minute explanation and help field questions in the question and answer session.

Audience for the debate session is by invitation only. Each side will be apportioned a maximum of 30 seats in the audience for supporters.

Another 30 seats will be allocated for media representatives.

Where?

Debate will be held at zubedy’s training suite in Kuala Lumpur. Address as follows:

Zubedy (m) sdn. bhd.

Level 3, Wisma W.I.M.

7 Jalan Abang Hj Openg

Taman Tun Dr. Ismail

60000 Kuala Lumpur.

When?

14^th April 2012 or 5^th May 2012 (to be agreed)

How?

• The debate session will be strictly non-political. Both sides and their supporters will not be allowed to bear anything with political connotations, e.g. T-shirts, placards, etc. The whole session will be held in a straightforward setting, conducive for the uncovering of facts, figures and truth. Both parties must ensure that no gathering be allowed to take place at, in the vicinity, or in relation to this debate.
• Speakers, experts and audience must keep to the issue of the pros and cons of the Lynas Advance Materials Plant (LAMP) project. Any arguments brought forth must directly address the issue at hand.
• While politics is out of the picture, Malaysian administration issues related directly to the issue of rare earth refineries and related processes may be discussed, i.e. in talking about implementation of processes, systems of monitoring, etc.
• The debate, presentation by experts and question & answer session will be recorded in video form and streamed live on an online platform for clear information to all who are interested. Media representation will also be invited to record the event.

Anas Zubedy

Build bridges, not walls by Shad Saleem Faruqi - The STAR

I COMMEND Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak for transcending race and religion and reaching out to the Hindus of this country by joining them for Thaipusum.

As the country’s PM, he is the leader of every community and it is his duty to build bridges of friendship rather than walls of hatred.

I am dismayed and disappointed that an online media story condemned Najib’s warm gesture as “idolatrous” and “a sacrifice of

his faith”. This view is narrow-minded, intolerant and reflective of a shallow understanding of Islam.

Islamic theory accepts religious pluralism (Quran 2:113 & 256, 5:2, 10:99). Islam is most respectful of previous monotheistic religions and holds their Prophets in great veneration (42:13, 2:136).

Cooperation with and courtesy towards other religions, including the polytheistic religions, is recommended (5:5, 6:108).

There is no bar to visiting non-Muslim places of worship. It all depends on the purpose of one’s visit.

If the purpose is aesthetic or to seek knowledge or to negotiate goodwill and peace, there is no religious obstacle.

Allah is every where and Muslim texts exquisitely state that “the whole earth is a mosque”.

There is historical record, including the writings of Al-Bukhari, that in the early stages of Islam, Muslim conquerors often performed their solat in Christian churches.

In the treatise Fiqh-us-Sunnah by Sayyid Saabiq (1915-2000) it is stated that there is nothing wrong in visiting churches and synagogues. Even praying in one is allowed if one happens to be in a church at the time of solat.

In the Cathedral of Saint John in Damascus, which later became the Umayad Mosque, Muslims and Christians prayed next to each other – Muslims facing the

Read more on this article

Stop Lynas, save Malaysia… but from what? - TMI by Zuraini AR

MARCH 2 — Quick, name me another politician who is as passionate in opposing Lynas as Kuantan MP Fuziah Salleh.

How about this instead: name me a politician who dared to break ranks on this Lynas issue. Besides that “nuclear scientist” guy. (His name is Che Rosli Che Mat by the way, and he taught nuclear science in UKM.)

If you are like the general public, you might have trouble naming names. Hence, the moment Tan Keng Liang of Gerakan demanded that Pakatan Rakyat politicians just shut up and agree with Che Rosli’s opinion unless they possess scientific arguments, he created an impasse that drew silence from most of his detractors.

Our elected representatives’ poor grasp on science (in this case, some basic nuclear physics) proved to be their undoing. As a result, both sides decided to either opt out or just toe their respective parties’ lines. A crucial environmental issue had effectively transformed into a political row with the government on Lynas’ side and opposition on the other.

To put things into perspective, let us recap what rare earths are, and what they are not. Rare earths by themselves are not radioactive. The by-product from their extraction, however, can contain thorium, and is radioactive. Thorium emits alpha-particles, instead of beta-particles — used usually for cancer treatments — or gamma-particles — the most dangerous of all, or in fiction, turns one into a green angry giant.

Alpha-particles cannot even go through human skin, but materials emitting it are harmful once eaten or breathed in. So, when people talk about the Lynas Advanced Materials Plant (LAMP) being radioactive, they should actually mean its waste is radioactive, not rare earths or the plant itself.

Che Rosli had a point when he accused his colleague of being unscientific. The same accusations can be directed towards a segment of public with anti-Lynas sentiments too, who are prone to exaggerations and scare-mongering with their appeals to emotions. It is understandable though that they would go to such lengths. After all, the consequences might be too big to bear. But are such tactics justified?

After the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, the industry has struggled to regain its credibility. Nothing illustrates this difficulty more than some anti-Lynas activists who discredit themselves by bringing this topic up. Comparing rare earth plants to nuclear power plants reeks of desperation, and is just downright sinister. No radioactive fuel is used, nor will meltdown happen, in a rare earth plant.

Closer to home, anti-Lynas activists point to the abandoned Asian Rare Earth (ARE) plant by Mitsubishi Chemicals in Bukit Merah. This comparison is unfair, for two major reasons. First, ARE was built more than 25 years ago, which in technological terms, is ancient. Second, ARE was built to extract the rare earth yttrium from mining leftover monazite, which can contain eight to 10 per cent thorium. In comparison. Lynas claims that LAMP will not be processing monazite, but mineral from the Mount Weld mine which is prized for having very low radiation, containing 0.17 per cent thorium.

The bulk of this fear can be attributed to the level of distrust against our ruling government and local authorities. A number of Malaysians just do not trust ourselves to run something that involves nuclear science. You’d have to wonder what these people have to say about our nuclear agency which has been running a nuclear reactor in Bangi since 1982.

As noted by my fellow columnist Hafiz Noor Shams, the government has been guilty of exaggerating the economic benefit of LAMP. A 12-year tax holiday, accepting collateral money from Lynas and keeping the public in the dark until New York Times broke the story — these are easy ammunition for anyone to shoot down a government that is increasingly being distrusted by the public.

Lynas, too, is no less shady. Their rush to complete the plant in more cost-effective Malaysia instead of Australia is tainted with suspicions of cost-cutting from two of their contractors. UGL Ltd and AkzoNobel have pointed out major flaws within the concrete containment area, which Lynas promised would spare local soil and groundwater from toxic contamination.

Considering that rare earth is now indispensable in our lives — we need to get them from somewhere, somehow — what we are left with now is a case of “not in my backyard.” Until LAMP starts operating and Molycorp restarts its California site, China holds the world ransom by controlling 97 per cent of the world’s supply. Complete disregard for environmental and legal concerns means an even worse fate for the Chinese.

Like many other Malaysians, I do wish for a cleaner and greener Malaysia, but it should go beyond a partisan affair. Che Rosli might only be a nuclear scientist (the Lynas effect is a more multi-faceted issue) but at least he had the conviction to go against party line and bring forth his own arguments.

Why aren’t there more BN politicians questioning the environmental impact of LAMP? Shouldn’t the PR politicians go beyond “if we are the federal government, we’ll shut Lynas down”? Will anyone take Tan Keng Liang’s challenge and come up with a factual retort instead of shouting “RADIOACTIVE!” over and over again?

Stopping Lynas and saving Malaysia… they don’t always need to be the same thing.

* The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the columnist.